Since I've had two replies that basically say the same thing, I'll reply to myself to answer:
1. Of course it isn't easy; and
2. This is a tool that quantum computer researchers have pretty much been requesting - a laser to more easily manipulate the devices they currently are using.
Point is, this isn't some obscure, not so useful (yet) tool - it has immediate applications, and can be put to immediate use.
I hope everyone here takes the time to read this well written, documented and thoroughly enjoyable "Open Letter". It should be the example of every discourse that happens on./ - especially when compared to SCO's letter. Each point of the original letter was carefully, thoroughly, and fairly addressed. There was quite a bit of documentation backing up each claim, and there was a healthy expectation that SCO should be following specific guidelines, along with an understanding and explanation of how those guidelines had been agreed upon by SCO. There were carefully phrased warnings of the consequences of breaking these agreements, without resorting to threats. Note: these warnings did not discuss the havoc that these remedies would cause for SCO, so I am defining them as being warnings instead of threats. Anyway, point is, this letter is a good example that our community should attempt to emulate, in my humble (but correct) opinion.
Your post makes no sense. Is it not clear that monitoring means that some organization is actively attempting to track what you are doing? Is the word "restrictions" confusing? Is it not clear that restrictions are things that stop you from doing something else? The only "conflict" I see between the two is that if there are no restrictions, then we cannot stop people from being monitored. But that is sophistry. I didn't say there shouldn't be any restrictions or monitoring - just a minimum. I would also say that it is clear that I am talking about imposing these restrictions and monitoring as part of the system. If I want to encrypt my transmission over the internet, I am not restricting people from monitoring my transmission, I'm just making it that much more difficult. Besides, monitoring, in this context, is generally not talking about an individual attempting to track someone else's activities, it is talking about an organization systematically, and in many cases, as an organizationally goal, attempting to monitor people, etc. Sorry for the meandering on this one - I'm so confused by your confusion, it's hard to be concise and clear.
By the way, why do you people post anonymously anyway? I almost feel like I should bother with people who are anonymous. What's the point?
Okay, so, I'm all for a call to arms to fight back and keep the Internet as free of restrictions, monitoring, etc. as possible. But this "report" is pretty factless and pointless. There doesn't seem to be a lot of connections between their points. I guess I feel the same way about this report as I did the propaganda about drugs I got from school - sure, I'm not particularly interested, so fine, I agree in principal, but why lie and mislead to make a point? I mean, I know WAY too many people who tried drugs because obviously the authorities were lying and so they were apparently trying to "protect" us against something good - so why not try it?
I'm not saying this report is lying, but I am saying that it exagerates, and misleads. And we shouldn't support that kind of crap - ESPECIALLY about things that matter to us.
Oh no! Microsoft security sucks! Its the worst in the entire world! Anyone can write a better, more secure OS than Microsoft! Why, oh why, aren't they using Linux, the only secure OS in the world (tm)? Whoa is me!
Okay, now that I've exhausting the topic for 90% of the people who are going to feel the need to post - who's up for some beer and pizza? Game of darts?
Okay, damn, just realized that I frickin' let you get me in a position where I'm defending Microsoft, etc. Good job - you got me headed in the wrong direction.
Let me make something clear. I'm not going to respond further to people who don't bother reading the damn thread, and who don't attempt some level of understanding. If you read my first post, you'd see that I agree completely that Microsoft is a big crapper when it comes to these activities. If you had read my post that you responded to, you'd see that we obviously aren't defining terms the same way.
If you are looking for an arguement over nothing, go look somewhere else. As for your Microsoft fixation, I suggest therapy. There are other problems out there, even in that same industry. Take a good hard look at Sun and Oracle, and their business practices. Take a look at the printer manufacturers. Yes, Microsoft sucks. We all agree. Can you please move on? I mean, feel free to add some additional insight, or if you've got some GOOD ideas on how to resolve the situation - please share. But this "Microsoft is Evil" thing is just so obvious, and has been repeated so many times - well, you get the point. If you don't, then while I feel really sorry for you, I'm not interested in helping you further. Have a good one.
I like Microsoft as much as the next guy - their screwups are my paycheck. Regardless of the padding of my pocketbook however, they have clearly sucked the life out of the software industry, when it comes to innovation. But my opinion of Microsoft here really doesn't matter.
First of all, as I said in the post you quoted, but didn't read - if you disagree with the definitions, then we are discussing an issue with no foundation, and that's pretty darn useless. So I repeat what I've said every post. Read what I posted, THEN respond. Oh wait, maybe it is because I forgot to mention you should try to understand it also?
I haven't been bashing Apple OVER Microsoft, just bashing at Apple, since people seem to see them as some sort of White Knight, which is a bunch of bung. But if you want to talk about Microsoft's Java, fine - one quick comment. Microsoft's Java implementation, which I wasn't a big fan of, worked fine with the Java standards that it was advertised to work with. There wasn't any "breaking of backwards compatibility". I'm guessing that you didn't do any work in Java on a Microsoft platform, and this is why you are spouting this nonsense. They certainly added to the specs, and put in a lot of garbage, and I'd say it didn't run well, but if you took an applet that was designed under the same base version from a Sun machine, it would work under Windows.
Fact checker! Aisle 1 - please escort Mr. Lodragandraoidh to some actual, factual resources. Thanks!
Embracing a standard means that you are touting your interoperability, etc. with a standard. "Extending", as defined in these conversations, means that you have added proprietary features to the products that are using these standards. All three items fall under these categories. Before you reply again, how about you DO spend some time reading the information I posted. If you disagree with my definitions, fine, we've nothing more to discuss. But if you agree, and feel that these three examples don't match up, well then, fire your guns... but please, research first, so we aren't just throwing mud. Facts are more fun! As for the "least standards compliant", I have to admit - I was also talking about their hardware, which is much worse than their software for tweaking with standards.
As for your counter examples - really doesn't matter, since we aren't saying that Apple doesn't use any standards, or that they aren't fully compliant in anyway - just that they are as bad, if not worse, then any other software vendor out there (and as I already said - hardware vendor too).
How is the parent offtopic again?:
"I agree with the FP.
20% of the people in the world do not have enough to eat. Want something interesting to do? Help feed one or more of the hungry.
If you care about being relevant, case mods, games, and broadband C64s are OFF TOPIC.
Don't mod this down just because you disagree. Look at the logic."
Oh no! I think IE 5.x is so superior to the (also free) v.6 that I'm still running that piece of garbage that was replaced several years ago. What should I do?
Enough for now - I have better things to do. Next time, feel free to search Google for this stuff on your own. Takes about 5 minutes to grab the basics. In each and every instance above, it talks about partial/complete implementation and the things they built on to extend the original standard. Which is the point. Enjoy.
Excellent point, touching on where most of these laws fail - identifying the spammer, and identifying them correctly. Thanks for hitting the point mostly - saves me a little bit of typing.
Sorry, but that's plainly not true. Apple is, and also have been, the least standards complaint computing platform of all desktop computers. They do not create/adopt standards for their software, unless they have to (HTML), and when they do, they do exactly the same things that every other software company does. Sorry, but Apple is DEFINITELY not even close to a "good" example of a company that DOESN'T do this.
Wow, got a problem with this business practice, huh? Well, can you name any major software company that has "embraced" standards, without extending them? Not Sun. Not Netscape. Not IBM. Maybe some Linux company?
I'm not defending the practice, just pointing out that it's considered legitimate by the software community at large, and used by some of the largest names in the industry. And that includes, but doesn't consist only of, Microsoft.
Glad there are some people who agree with the RIAA, since we need someone to hone our arguements against. 'Course, you are wrong to support them, but that's besides the point:)
1. Yes, several lawyers have put together some good arguements, and I've read quite a few commentaries that talk about how the DMCA violates the intent of copyright law. And no, these haven't made it to the Supreme Court. But seriously, not making it to the Supreme Court is hardly a litmus test on whether something is right or wrong... that a good case hasn't made it yet just means that it hasn't happened yet. Hardly the best arguement against the point. But keep trying!
2. A collection agency doesn't prosecute people for stealing things. And the RIAA isn't attempt to recupe losses from products that they sold. And damn, as Orson Scott Card said, there isn't even a good arguement that they are losing the kind of money they claim to be losing over these file sharing networks. When any non-goverment agency can violate my privacy on a "hunch", that is when they are stepping over the line. And when they pretend they can offer "amnesty", then they need to get nailed.
Slashdot Mirror
Since I've had two replies that basically say the same thing, I'll reply to myself to answer:
1. Of course it isn't easy; and
2. This is a tool that quantum computer researchers have pretty much been requesting - a laser to more easily manipulate the devices they currently are using.
Point is, this isn't some obscure, not so useful (yet) tool - it has immediate applications, and can be put to immediate use.
Even the SUMMARY said what this will be used for - creating a Quantum computer. Keep up, please! :)
I hope everyone here takes the time to read this well written, documented and thoroughly enjoyable "Open Letter". It should be the example of every discourse that happens on ./ - especially when compared to SCO's letter. Each point of the original letter was carefully, thoroughly, and fairly addressed. There was quite a bit of documentation backing up each claim, and there was a healthy expectation that SCO should be following specific guidelines, along with an understanding and explanation of how those guidelines had been agreed upon by SCO. There were carefully phrased warnings of the consequences of breaking these agreements, without resorting to threats. Note: these warnings did not discuss the havoc that these remedies would cause for SCO, so I am defining them as being warnings instead of threats. Anyway, point is, this letter is a good example that our community should attempt to emulate, in my humble (but correct) opinion.
Would the word "desirable" make more sense? I mean, I don't think I understand your confusion on this one....
Your post makes no sense. Is it not clear that monitoring means that some organization is actively attempting to track what you are doing? Is the word "restrictions" confusing? Is it not clear that restrictions are things that stop you from doing something else? The only "conflict" I see between the two is that if there are no restrictions, then we cannot stop people from being monitored. But that is sophistry. I didn't say there shouldn't be any restrictions or monitoring - just a minimum. I would also say that it is clear that I am talking about imposing these restrictions and monitoring as part of the system. If I want to encrypt my transmission over the internet, I am not restricting people from monitoring my transmission, I'm just making it that much more difficult. Besides, monitoring, in this context, is generally not talking about an individual attempting to track someone else's activities, it is talking about an organization systematically, and in many cases, as an organizationally goal, attempting to monitor people, etc. Sorry for the meandering on this one - I'm so confused by your confusion, it's hard to be concise and clear.
By the way, why do you people post anonymously anyway? I almost feel like I should bother with people who are anonymous. What's the point?
Thanks for taking the time to do this.
Whoops. And I just thought I was challenging people to open their mind and see the world for what it is. My mistake.
Yeah, well, try voting. Make the change. The government means you and I in the USA, at least.
Okay, so, I'm all for a call to arms to fight back and keep the Internet as free of restrictions, monitoring, etc. as possible. But this "report" is pretty factless and pointless. There doesn't seem to be a lot of connections between their points. I guess I feel the same way about this report as I did the propaganda about drugs I got from school - sure, I'm not particularly interested, so fine, I agree in principal, but why lie and mislead to make a point? I mean, I know WAY too many people who tried drugs because obviously the authorities were lying and so they were apparently trying to "protect" us against something good - so why not try it?
I'm not saying this report is lying, but I am saying that it exagerates, and misleads. And we shouldn't support that kind of crap - ESPECIALLY about things that matter to us.
Oh no! Microsoft security sucks! Its the worst in the entire world! Anyone can write a better, more secure OS than Microsoft! Why, oh why, aren't they using Linux, the only secure OS in the world (tm)? Whoa is me!
Okay, now that I've exhausting the topic for 90% of the people who are going to feel the need to post - who's up for some beer and pizza? Game of darts?
Okay, damn, just realized that I frickin' let you get me in a position where I'm defending Microsoft, etc. Good job - you got me headed in the wrong direction.
Let me make something clear. I'm not going to respond further to people who don't bother reading the damn thread, and who don't attempt some level of understanding. If you read my first post, you'd see that I agree completely that Microsoft is a big crapper when it comes to these activities. If you had read my post that you responded to, you'd see that we obviously aren't defining terms the same way.
If you are looking for an arguement over nothing, go look somewhere else. As for your Microsoft fixation, I suggest therapy. There are other problems out there, even in that same industry. Take a good hard look at Sun and Oracle, and their business practices. Take a look at the printer manufacturers. Yes, Microsoft sucks. We all agree. Can you please move on? I mean, feel free to add some additional insight, or if you've got some GOOD ideas on how to resolve the situation - please share. But this "Microsoft is Evil" thing is just so obvious, and has been repeated so many times - well, you get the point. If you don't, then while I feel really sorry for you, I'm not interested in helping you further. Have a good one.
I like Microsoft as much as the next guy - their screwups are my paycheck. Regardless of the padding of my pocketbook however, they have clearly sucked the life out of the software industry, when it comes to innovation. But my opinion of Microsoft here really doesn't matter.
First of all, as I said in the post you quoted, but didn't read - if you disagree with the definitions, then we are discussing an issue with no foundation, and that's pretty darn useless. So I repeat what I've said every post. Read what I posted, THEN respond. Oh wait, maybe it is because I forgot to mention you should try to understand it also?
I haven't been bashing Apple OVER Microsoft, just bashing at Apple, since people seem to see them as some sort of White Knight, which is a bunch of bung. But if you want to talk about Microsoft's Java, fine - one quick comment. Microsoft's Java implementation, which I wasn't a big fan of, worked fine with the Java standards that it was advertised to work with. There wasn't any "breaking of backwards compatibility". I'm guessing that you didn't do any work in Java on a Microsoft platform, and this is why you are spouting this nonsense. They certainly added to the specs, and put in a lot of garbage, and I'd say it didn't run well, but if you took an applet that was designed under the same base version from a Sun machine, it would work under Windows.
Fact checker! Aisle 1 - please escort Mr. Lodragandraoidh to some actual, factual resources. Thanks!
Embracing a standard means that you are touting your interoperability, etc. with a standard. "Extending", as defined in these conversations, means that you have added proprietary features to the products that are using these standards. All three items fall under these categories. Before you reply again, how about you DO spend some time reading the information I posted. If you disagree with my definitions, fine, we've nothing more to discuss. But if you agree, and feel that these three examples don't match up, well then, fire your guns... but please, research first, so we aren't just throwing mud. Facts are more fun! As for the "least standards compliant", I have to admit - I was also talking about their hardware, which is much worse than their software for tweaking with standards.
As for your counter examples - really doesn't matter, since we aren't saying that Apple doesn't use any standards, or that they aren't fully compliant in anyway - just that they are as bad, if not worse, then any other software vendor out there (and as I already said - hardware vendor too).
How is the parent offtopic again?: "I agree with the FP. 20% of the people in the world do not have enough to eat. Want something interesting to do? Help feed one or more of the hungry. If you care about being relevant, case mods, games, and broadband C64s are OFF TOPIC. Don't mod this down just because you disagree. Look at the logic."
The exploit is the same on that MSBlaster used, so if you updated to protect yourself from that, then you are safe from this. Enjoy.
Oh no! I think IE 5.x is so superior to the (also free) v.6 that I'm still running that piece of garbage that was replaced several years ago. What should I do?
Here's some:
1. Web Objects
2. Open Directory
3. Article on Support for Web Standards (HTML, XHTML, etc.)
Enough for now - I have better things to do. Next time, feel free to search Google for this stuff on your own. Takes about 5 minutes to grab the basics. In each and every instance above, it talks about partial/complete implementation and the things they built on to extend the original standard. Which is the point. Enjoy.
Excellent point, touching on where most of these laws fail - identifying the spammer, and identifying them correctly. Thanks for hitting the point mostly - saves me a little bit of typing.
Sorry, but that's plainly not true. Apple is, and also have been, the least standards complaint computing platform of all desktop computers. They do not create/adopt standards for their software, unless they have to (HTML), and when they do, they do exactly the same things that every other software company does. Sorry, but Apple is DEFINITELY not even close to a "good" example of a company that DOESN'T do this.
Wow, got a problem with this business practice, huh? Well, can you name any major software company that has "embraced" standards, without extending them? Not Sun. Not Netscape. Not IBM. Maybe some Linux company?
I'm not defending the practice, just pointing out that it's considered legitimate by the software community at large, and used by some of the largest names in the industry. And that includes, but doesn't consist only of, Microsoft.
Netscape is gone already. There is no product team developing Netscape. Ipso facto - no Netscape.
Sun's Java fiasco, or Microsoft's fiasco?
Whoops! I'll make sure not to answer to that name then. My apologies!
Glad there are some people who agree with the RIAA, since we need someone to hone our arguements against. 'Course, you are wrong to support them, but that's besides the point :)
1. Yes, several lawyers have put together some good arguements, and I've read quite a few commentaries that talk about how the DMCA violates the intent of copyright law. And no, these haven't made it to the Supreme Court. But seriously, not making it to the Supreme Court is hardly a litmus test on whether something is right or wrong... that a good case hasn't made it yet just means that it hasn't happened yet. Hardly the best arguement against the point. But keep trying!
2. A collection agency doesn't prosecute people for stealing things. And the RIAA isn't attempt to recupe losses from products that they sold. And damn, as Orson Scott Card said, there isn't even a good arguement that they are losing the kind of money they claim to be losing over these file sharing networks. When any non-goverment agency can violate my privacy on a "hunch", that is when they are stepping over the line. And when they pretend they can offer "amnesty", then they need to get nailed.
That's one good way - thanks!